Answers to Ron Paul's Questions on Iraq From an Opponent of the War

Lew Rockwell ^ | 9/14/02 | Jacob G. Hornberger

[Boonie Rat]

Discussion of the premise of the article welcomed. Attacks on the source discouraged.

Boonie Rat

MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66

[DB]

Why? Do you think source doesn't matter?

[Texas_Jarhead]

I stopped after Ritter's name was invoked.

[John W]

RE:The answer to Question # 4.How does Ritter's current position jive with this:

Resignation Letter of William S. Ritter, Jr.
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES

UNSCOM
UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMISSION

Richard Butler
Executive Chairman
United Nations Special Commission
New York, New York

Dear Mr. Butler,

26 August 1998

Since September 1991 I have dedicated my professional life to the furtherance of the mandate of the Special Commission as set forth in relevant Security Council resolutions. I believed in what the Special Commission stood for, and made many sacrifices, both personal and professional, required to perform my duties. In this I was no different from hundreds of my colleagues, who likewise dedicated themselves to carrying out a difficult but worthwhile task.

The Special Commission was created for the purpose of disarming Iraq. As part of the Special Commission team, I have worked to achieve a simple end: the removal, destruction or rendering harmless of Iraq's proscribed weapons. The sad truth is that Iraq today is not disarmed anywhere near the level required by Security Council resolutions. As you know, UNSCOM has good reason to believe that there are significant numbers of proscribed weapons and related components and the means to manufacture such weapons unaccounted for in Iraq today.

Unfortunately, the recent decisions by the Security Council to downplay the significance of the recent Iraqi decision to cease cooperation with Commission inspectors clearly indicates that the organization which created the Special Commission in its resolution 687 (1991) is no longer willing and/or capable of the implementation of its own law, in this case an enforceable resolution passed under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. This abrogation of its most basic of responsibilities has made the Security Council a witting partner to an overall Iraqi strategy of weakening the Special Commission. The Secretary General and his Special Representative have allowed the grand office of the Secretary General to become a sounding board for Iraqi grievances, real or imagined. In fact, the Secretary General himself has proposed a "comprehensive review" of the UNSCOM-Iraqi relationship, an action that would result in having the investigators becoming the investigated, all at the behest of Iraq. Such an action, in addition to being a farce, would create a clear distraction from the critical disarmament issues related to Iraq and its compliance with Security Council resolutions.

Iraq has lied to the Special Commission and the world since day one concerning the true scope and nature of its proscribed programs and weapons systems. This lie has been perpetuated over the years - through systematic acts of concealment. It was for the purpose of uncovering Iraq's mechanism of concealment, and in doing so gaining access to the hidden weapons, components and weapons programs, that you created a dedicated capability to investigate Iraq's concealment activities, which I have had the privilege to head. During the period of time that this effort has been underway, the Commission has uncovered indisputable proof of a systematic concealment mechanism, run by the Presidency of Iraq and protected by the Presidential security forces. This investigation has led the Commission to the door step of Iraq's hidden retained capability, and yet the Commission has been frustrated by Iraq's continued refusal to abide by its obligations under Security Council resolutions and the Memorandum of Understanding of 23 February 1998 to allow inspections, the Security Council's refusal to effectively respond to Iraq's actions, and now the current decision by the Security Council and the Secretary General, backed at least implicitly by the United States, to seek a "diplomatic" alternative to inspection driven confrontation with Iraq, a decision which constitutes a surrender to the Iraqi leadership that has succeeded in thwarting the stated will of the United Nations.

Inspections do work - too well, in fact, prompting Iraq to shut them down all together. Almost without exception, every one of the impressive gains made by UNSCOM over the years in disarming Iraq can be traced to the effectiveness of the inspection regime implemented by the Special Commission. The issue of immediate, unrestricted access is, in my opinion, the cornerstone of any viable inspection regime, and as such is an issue worth fighting for. Unfortunately, others do not share this opinion, including the Security Council and the United States. The Special Commission of today, hobbled as it is by unfettered Iraqi obstruction and non-existent Security Council enforcement of its own resolutions, is not the organization I joined almost seven years ago. I am, and will always be, fully supportive of the difficult mission that you, the Executive Chairman, and my colleagues at the Special Commission are tasked to accomplish. The refusal and/or inability on the part of the Security Council to exercise responsibility concerning the disarmament obligations of Iraq makes a mockery of the mission the staff of the Special Commission have been charged with implementing.

The illusion of arms control is more dangerous than no arms control at all. What is being propagated by the Security Council today in relation to the work of the Special Commission is such an illusion, one which in all good faith I cannot, and will not be a party to. I have no other option than to resign from my position here at the Commission effective immediately.

I want you to be assured that I hold both you and the staff of the Special Commission in the highest regard. I am aware of the immensely difficult task you have been charged with implementing. I only wish the world truly understood the heroic efforts you have undertaken, and the impossible conditions which you have been compelled to operate. I wish you and the staff the best in whatever the future holds.

Sincerely,

(signed)
Willam S. Ritter, Jr.

[steve50]

bump

[Boonie Rat]

Why? Do you think source doesn't matter?

Those who can't the premise of an article,other than attack the website, the source I was referring to, do not contribute much to the discussion, IMHO.

Boonie Rat

MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66

[Gumption]

Hornberger: Yes. Also, former Marine and former UN Inspector Scott Ritter is openly challenging the administration's thesis that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

How come "they" only use Ritter's opinion, and only his recent opinions at that, when there are more than one former UN Inspector voicing opinions on the Iraqi threat? Maybe because he's the only ONE "challenging the administration's thesis that Iraq is a threat to the United States" and the rest support the "administration's thesis"?

[Boonie Rat]

Those who can't the premise of an article,other than attack the website, the source I was referring to, do not contribute much to the discussion, IMHO

Sorry, not enough coffee.

Those who can't rebutt the premise of an article,other than attack the website, the source I was referring to, do not contribute much to the discussion, IMHO.

Boonie Rat

MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66

[carenot]

Thanks for posting this article.

Ping for exodus.

[wattsmag2]

Discouraged or not, when they use Scott Ritter to back up their arguments, they are using a traitor.

[11B3]

And just why is Lew Rockwell a sacred cow? Is it because the LP (and the source in particular) is even further to the left than Daschle regarding national security and generally in alignment with Tariq Aziz?

[DreamWeaver]

Why ? Do you think source doesn't matter ?

I make it a practice of not attacking the messenger, attack the message, dispute what the messenger puts before you. What is it that was said that you do not agree with ?

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Ron Paul is one of the few honest and clear-thinking politicians left. I admire him for that and he will be the only politician I will be supporting with contributions at this time.

I don't care if anyone on this forum disagrees but it is my view, and I happen to be right, that W is doing more to take apart our country and our nation than 5 consecutive terms of Clinton could have done. Not that Clinton wouldn't have tried to do what W is about to attempt now. It's only that there would have been more dissent if Clinton tried it.

[jwalsh07]

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

Since this is number 1 on the hit parade, I'll start here. Paul and Hornberger are both incorrect. The answer to number 1 is absolutely NO. The reason we didn't launch on the Soviet Union at the height of the cold war was because we did not have enough provocation to do so. The reason the Soviets didn't launch on America is because they knew we would retaliate.

And this in a nutshell is my problem with Ron Paul and Hornberger, they are not even astute enough to recognise the difference between their own country and the Stalinist USSR.

[DB]

Here's what I do agree with:

What Have We Lost?

[CIB-173RDABN]

If Iraq was the only target, perhaps this article would have a point.

The threat to the United States (and the western world) is the entire middle east. Afghaistan was step one. Iraq is step two. If the other countries in the region do not get the message, then one of them will be step three.

We are at war.

During WWII, our troops had to fight in a lot of differnt countries before reaching Germany. That is going to be the case now.

So the entire argument as presented makes as much sense as if someone would have written an argument against landing in France during D Day, after all we were not at war with France.

[DB]

Well "I know" you're wrong.

Well I guess that settles it then...

[faintpraise]

Bump for informative Q & A.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

I wouldn't worry about anyone attacking the source. Clearly, attacking Iraq based on the premises W offers would be a mistake - because the premises are either false or impossible to prove true and, even if true, they would still not justify attacking Bush senior's former ally, Iraq. Not while China, North Korea, Pakistan and other governments are still in business with some, such as China, actually suggesting nuclear attacks on our cities.

Ron Paul's questions need answers and, if anyone disagrees with the answers provided, then they should address the answers, one by one and prove that W is not trying to insult America by assuming we are a bunch of morons, like he did when he announced that illegal immigrants are nothing but an expression of 'family values'.

[First_Salute]

The Congress has the power to authorize warfare, not the President; yet a formal declaration of war never was, and has never been, required by the Constitution.

Presently, the Congress has authorized both the preparations for warfare, as well as warfare, for a variety of military situations in which is, or may be, the United States.

The United States has been at war against Iraq since the beginning of the Gulf War; Great Britain and the United States have shouldered the burden to enforce the conditional 1991 cease-fire.

Because the World of Fascist Islam "from Malaysia to Morocco," has formally attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, and did so with prior knowledge of such attacks by several of the Islamic States (and some socialist states), the United States will for some time be at war against the ever-changing conspirators of those states among themselves and with the powers of world socialism, because that axis of a terrorism needs to be killed as matter of defending ourselves from such killers of life and liberty.

The present front lines in Iraq, held by the allies, Great Britain and the United States, are expected to change, according to Tony Blair and George Bush in their recent announcements; the immediate reasons for this, can be found in such announcements.

The present front lines against the axis of terrorism may also be expected to change.

The United States is not yet prepared for these challenges.

This is a world war against the Axis of terrorism, and the tasks will require both clever and conventional methods of warfare; and the United States has not yet the conventional strength.